Topic: Tag implication: disembodied_vulva -> female

The tag implication #71164 disembodied_vulva -> female is pending approval.

Reason: Much like how we force-lock disembodied penis to have the male tag, we should follow suit with disembodied vulva. Or, the reverse, we should remove the implication from the disembodied penis.

https://e621.net/forum_topics/41059
Going to include this as it's a related issue.

With support for removing the other implication being so high, we shouldn't add more implications to remove later

donovan_dmc said:
With support for removing the other implication being so high, we shouldn't add more implications to remove later

I forgot about that forum until today, honestly, but the switch needs to be pushed in either direction; which way it goes doesn't really matter to me. We can't leave this in a half-complete state as it currently is.

You know, my one question from many years ago still goes unanswered.

post #149881 post #3190281 post #3629411

Would the herm genitals (excl. examples of faceless_*) qualify for both disembodied_penis and disembodied_vulva?
If yes, then the gender implications need to go.
If no, then the gender implications can stay but there needs to be a third tag for disembodied mixed genitals (which can subsequently imply intersex).

thegreatwolfgang said:
You know, my one question from many years ago still goes unanswered.

post #149881 post #3190281 post #3629411

Would the herm genitals (excl. examples of faceless_*) qualify for both disembodied_penis and disembodied_vulva?
If yes, then the gender implications need to go.
If no, then the gender implications can stay but there needs to be a third tag for disembodied mixed genitals (which can subsequently imply intersex).

If they go, we'll need to write a regulation on how to apply disembodied genitalia.

thegreatwolfgang said:
Would the herm genitals (excl. examples of faceless_*) qualify for both disembodied_penis and disembodied_vulva?
If yes, then the gender implications need to go.
If no, then the gender implications can stay but there needs to be a third tag for disembodied mixed genitals (which can subsequently imply intersex).

If a disembodied penis+balls counts for disembodied_penis+disembodied_balls, which I believe it does (aside from the latter being woefully undertagged in general):
post #6186025 post #4985112
then I don't see why a disembodied penis+vulva wouldn't count for disembodied_penis+disembodied_vulva. As long as you don't see it connected to the body, ala
post #6180650

Your first example might be disqualified since you can see a little bit of the body around the vulva, though I could see the argument that it's too minimal to count so could go either way. Your other examples though, are perfectly fine.

watsit said:
If a disembodied penis+balls counts for disembodied_penis+disembodied_balls, which I believe it does (aside from the latter being woefully undertagged in general)...

then I don't see why a disembodied penis+vulva wouldn't count for disembodied_penis+disembodied_vulva. As long as you don't see it connected to the body...

Then comes the problem: If we were to allow tagging disembodied_<genitals> for herms, then their posts would unavoidably be tagged with male + female as well and it shows that the current implications do not work.
However, I also acknowledge that this is a very rare exception and that most disembodied_<genitals> would accurately correspond with their respective genders (i.e., male & female).

Thus, we are at a crossroads here. Either we ditch the implications (which will require major rewrites) or make a new disembodied_<genitals> tag for intersex (which will require extended discussions).

thegreatwolfgang said:
Thus, we are at a crossroads here. Either we ditch the implications (which will require major rewrites) or make a new disembodied_<genitals> tag for intersex (which will require extended discussions).

I don't see why ditching the implications will require major rewrites. We just stop assuming a disembodied penis is always male (even if 99% of the time it is and should be tagged such) and don't start assuming a disembodied vulva is always female (as we already don't, given this implication doesn't exist). Even outside of the disembodied penis+vulva combo, there's other scenarios laid out in the other thread where the implications fail.

The only real issue will be people neglecting to tag male or female or whatever with the disembodied body parts either because they didn't think to, or they're mistakenly assuming disembodied body parts don't count as characters (which affects character counts too, not just sex tags, and they can be reported if they routinely tag incorrectly and don't listen after being told otherwise). But I don't think that's a good reason to make disembodied_<genitals> more complicated by saying they don't apply in situations where you see disembodied genitals because of implications that would cause mistags. Various <accessory>_only tags (e.g. collar_only) implying nude already cause problems like this with ferals, for example, which can be wearing only an accessory but shouldn't be tagged nude, causing mistags and confusion from people not knowing or realizing ferals can't/shouldn't be tagged <accessory>_only for tags that imply nude when the tag otherwise would apply. I don't think extending this problem to other tags is a good move.

thegreatwolfgang said:
Thus, we are at a crossroads here. Either we ditch the implications (which will require major rewrites)

major rewrites of what? all that'd change is that we consider multiple moments from a single post to be related in regards to disembodied body parts, which is something we already do for everything else anyway.

watsit said:
I don't see why ditching the implications will require major rewrites.

dba_afish said:
major rewrites of what? all that'd change is that we consider multiple moments from a single post to be related in regards to disembodied body parts, which is something we already do for everything else anyway.

I was referring to @Vesperus' comment above on new regulations being in place for the disembodied_<genitals> tags.
The current wikis all assume a plain disembodied_penis to be inherently male and subsequently dictates how the <gender>/<gender> tag is selected.

thegreatwolfgang said:
I was referring to @Vesperus' comment above on new regulations being in place for the disembodied_<genitals> tags.
The current wikis all assume a plain disembodied_penis to be inherently male and subsequently dictates how the <gender>/<gender> tag is selected.

For disembodied_penis, there's only one line that mentions

• This always counts as a male character, no exceptions.

That will need to be changed/reworded say it should be considered male by default, unless a vulva is visibly attached to it or more of the character is visible separately in the image (e.g. a separate comic panel, or a cutaway), that shows the character isn't male. I don't think that would constitute a "major rewrite".

The way the "<gender>/<gender>" tags are worded don't sound like they necessarily contradict with an altered definition:

male/male says:
This tag also applies to solo focus images where a male character is sexually interacting with other male character who is mostly off screen, or is represented by a disembodied penis, this also includes male pov images where the viewer is interacting with a male character.

The "other male character who [...] is represented by a disembodied penis" bit reads to me like referring to another character that is determined to be male (by whatever appropriate means), even if they're represented by a disembodied penis. I wouldn't read that as meaning a disembodied penis always represents another male, just that it can and would count for the pairing tag to apply.